About your Search

20130106
20130114
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)
will do at the confirmation hearing. i don't believe there's moral equivalency between the two sides which is the suggestion of that article. >> he believe there is moral equivalency? >> you will have to ask him what he believes. my judgment and knowledge of chuck chuck and my suggestions with chuck would suggest that he wants to see both sides come to the table and find a solution. he spores the peace process. but he is upper most, a very, very strong supporter of the state of israel. he has voted for billions and billions of dollars of aid to israel. i have no question when it comes to challenges that have anything to do with putting israel at risk, chuck hagel will be on israel's side. remember, he is working for a president. and he will follow the poll so i was that president. >> the renew deed bait about iraq is also occurring. the "new york times" writes about that today. in his memoir, he writes something very poignant about the iraq war. he writes, "it all comes down to the fact we were asked to vote on a res lation based on half-truths, untruths and winful thinking. i voted for th
. how would he advise this president on how to overcome the threat? >> first of all, i don't think that is a correct assessment. chuck hagel said nothing is off the table but one of the things he believes in is prospects for negotiation. we have been ready to negotiate under the right set of circumstances with iran for the last several years with our friends and allies so, force is the table but i'm glad we have people like the president and like chuck hagel who will be very careful when you start throwing around the terms -- >> he says it's not feasible. do you agree it is not feasible. >> what is the not feasible? >> military option? >>> military option is always feasible, you tell me what the option is. are we going to blow up tehran or go after facilities that might be well protected or hidden? and i think bob gates, the previous secretary of defense, who pointed out the difficulty of striking these places is a real one. so any military option is feasible in terms of dropping bombs but what is the result of that military attack? with respect to the revolutionary guard, he has r
years. we don't have this problem because we tax too little. we have it because we spend way, way too much. so we have settled the tax issue. the question now is can we address the single biggest threat to america's future. and that's our excessive spending. i would like for the president to lead. it is a shame that we have to kind of drag him to the table to get him to discuss the single biggest issue confronting the future of our country. >> again, i think that people would push back at the idea that you would have to lead him. the president proposed significant entitlement cuts. simpson and bowles said he did it, though they would have liked him to have gone further. republicans would not agree on revenues. going back to last summer you say you don't want to relit gate it. you can't say he's been dragged kicking and screaming when he has proposed entitlement cuts that true? >> no, he has not. he didn't even embrace simpson-bowles. ask them why he didn't embrace simpson-bowles. he hasn't embraced any specific proposal here in public to deal with significant entitlement changes. he h
america's bills issue was a hostage you might take a chance at shooting. most of us don't think that. what we did learn is this. it's a hostage that's worth ransoming. is that the strategy for the coming fight over the debt ceiling? >> well, first, these last-minute deals are no way to run the government. i can tell you that. we know what the problem is. you're going to have al simpson and erskine bowles on. they have talked about this for a couple of years now. we have a spending problem. you know, we have a debt the size of our economy, which makes us look a lot like greece. this administration has driven spending as a percentage of our economy from 21% up to almost 25%. we've resolved the tax issue now. it's over. it's behind us. we were able to get permanent tax relief for 99% of american taxpayers. and for 500,000 small businesses. so that's behind us. what's left to be dealt with is the spending. and it's a shame that the president doesn't embrace the effort to reduce spending. none of us like using these situations like the sequester or the debt ceiling or the operation of governmen
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)